The Future of Photography?

[roteague]

i'm suspicious of the idea that there's a particular film look and feel and a particular digital look and feel.

these are both categories of process, and the possible range of look and feel within each one is staggering. i have little doubt you would find examples of film whose look and feel you'd dislike, and examples of digital whose look and feel you'd like.

I understand where you are coming from Paul, and have to say that my statement is only meant in the general sense. I don't mean it from a sense of composition or impact; I spend time on Photosig, and have seen some stunning images there - some taken with digital cameras. However, I do see a difference between the two mediums in the way they reproduce color and in the type of sharpness both exhibit. In this respect, I prefer those images taken with film.

BTW, I do own a digital camera, a Nikon D200, I use it when I need convenience, illustrative or other quick use purposes. Jjust yesterday I used it to test an old lens I had laying around, which looks like I will have to throw away, and I wanted to confirm it before.

[Daniel_Buck]

I understand where you are coming from Paul, and have to say that my statement is only meant in the general sense. I don't mean it from a sense of composition or impact; I spend time on Photosig, and have seen some stunning images there - some taken with digital cameras. However, I do see a difference between the two mediums in the way they reproduce color and in the type of sharpness both exhibit. In this respect, I prefer those images taken with film.

BTW, I do own a digital camera, a Nikon D200, I use it when I need convenience, illustrative or other quick use purposes. Jjust yesterday I used it to test an old lens I had laying around, which looks like I will have to throw away, and I wanted to confirm it before.

Can you honestly say you can really tell the difference between film and digital when looking at a small image on a computer monitor? Not that it matters, as computer monitors aren't usually the final output, but I for one can't tell what image was shot in what format or what medium from just a small uploaded image on a computer monitor.

I'm not well rooted in film so maybe I don't know what to look for, but on my images when I downsize them I wouldn't know which was which if I didn't know otherwise. On my downsized images, I actually lable them as digital or film, just so in the future I don't forget. I have a similar workflow for both digital and digitally scanned negatives, so maybe that's why. My prints I can always tell, because of the nice grain on the film, however. Although, I'm considering scanning in a medium grey exposed sheet of film and using that grain on my digital photos, because I like the look of film grain.

[Brian Ellis]

"I just wonder how long the general public will be wow'd by the effect before getting tired of it. "

The technique described in the Calumet catalog of making separate exposures for the foreground, midground, and background and then merging them is just a way of extending depth of field, something we've been doing with tilt and swing for a long time. If it's also coupled with altering each exposure to maintain detail in the highlights and shadows, that too is something we've done for a long time through use of the zone system or just changing development times to adjust highlight densities. Again, nothing new, just much more control.

I almost never make only one exposure of a digital photograph when there's sky or some other very bright area in the photogaph, I always make two, one for the sky and the other for the rest of the photograph. Very occasionally I'll make three. Merging two or three photographs in Photoshop is very easy to do, takes only a couple minutes at the most. I haven't tried making three exposures of the foreground, mid, and back to maximize depth of field. That one's a little tricky because of course the lens moves forward or backward with each exposure and so when you're merging them you don't have three identical photographs to merge. I've read of the technique that's used, I just haven't tried it.

I don't see why anyone would have any problems with either of these techniques or why the public would get tired of them. None of it seems to me to differ in a meaningful way from all of the various technical innovations that have taken place in photography since time immemorial. Look at the difference between a 35mm camera made in the 1950s and a 35mm camera made in the 1990s - auto focus, 20 or 30 frames per second, continuous focus on a moving subject, multiple methods of metering, auto bracketing, the list of things the 1990s camera had that the 1950s didn't goes on and on. Nobody suggested that because so much more could be done so easily with the 1990s camera than the 1950s the 1990s camera didn't make "real" photographs or that the public had a problem with any of it.

[john borrelli]

Daniel thanks for your example; the exposure in both the shadows and highlight areas, as well as the sharpness throughout the scene, makes me doubt that I could have done it with a single shot with my 4X5, Velvia and a grad filter. Paul R. I have seen the image you are referring to and it did have a haunting quality. Some photographers seem to see this technique as digital verses analog but with a film scanner, Photoshop CS3 and this HDR technique, we seem to be at the point where both film and digital photography can benefit. I don't mean to ignore some of the legitimate philosophical questions being discussed but at present I am concerned about the more mundane issue of whether my G4 would slow to a crawl while trying to handle three 4X5 scans for an 11X14 print. I actually have not tried this compositing yet, though I have some experience with Photoshop; I appreciate that this may be a difficult, time consuming technique but I think it is worth a try. Maybe I'll make an image bracketing for exposure, focusing and maybe tilt or swing and then save the slides until I have all the equipment and technique down. Thanks to everyone for the great feedback!

[PBrooks]

Honestly, every time there is a new digital camera or technique, it's always "Photography is dead""Future for photography in danger" or the I'm going to replace everything, one answer, there is no doing what you did before, cause i do everything and i do it better. Oh yeah I cost 27,000 dollars and you have to replace me in 2.5 years but that's ok cause i've been obsolete ever since the day after you bought me anyways.

[roteague]

Can you honestly say you can really tell the difference between film and digital when looking at a small image on a computer monitor? Not that it matters, as computer monitors aren't usually the final output, but I for one can't tell what image was shot in what format or what medium from just a small uploaded image on a computer monitor.

I wasn't referring to a monitor, but to a print (magazine or otherwise) - I should have stated so more specifically. Referring to Photosig was simply to point out that I have found some excellent work there, most of the work on that site is digital, meaning that digital photographers are capable of excellent composition. The difference between film and digital isn't the composition, but rather the "look and feel" - based upon hints I see in color and sharpness (and I'm not referring to dropouts or artifacts). The "look and feel" is more of a feeling. For example, in the last issue of Outdoor Photography I was able to pick out 90+% of the film images simply by "look and feel" - I don't know how to put it into words, it is just a feeling.

[Daniel_Buck]

I wasn't referring to a monitor, but to a print (magazine or otherwise) - I should have stated so more specifically. Referring to Photosig was simply to point out that I have found some excellent work there, most of the work on that site is digital, meaning that digital photographers are capable of excellent composition. The difference between film and digital isn't the composition, but rather the "look and feel" - based upon hints I see in color and sharpness (and I'm not referring to dropouts or artifacts). The "look and feel" is more of a feeling. For example, in the last issue of Outdoor Photography I was able to pick out 90+% of the film images simply by "look and feel" - I don't know how to put it into words, it is just a feeling.

ah, yes that makes more sense

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

As usual Brian hit the nail in the head, aside from his comments on camera movement, back in the early 90s the rage became doing two exposures, one for sky and one for foreground, make lith masks and print the belnded image. If you had a registration set up this was easily done and did not take that long. This is nothing new, in fact now with digital it is easier in the darkroom. I now do paper masks (they do stop UV light) and dodge and burn with them. This is nothing new and certainly not a threat to traditional photography.

[joolsb]

Interestingly, the American art photographer, Gergory Crewdson, uses this multiple blended exposure technique with 10x8 film. But then, given the size of the team he works with, his shooting-budget must be virtually unlimited...

[paulr]

using a separate exposure for the sky actually goes back to the mid 19th century, when the blue-sensitive emulsions made it impossible to capture the sky and the foreground in one exposure.

all the landscapes and seascapes with detailed skies from before the turn of the century (or whenever ortho films first came out) were made this way. it was popular for poster-style images that were big sellers at the time. studios back in civilization would crank out prints in huge volumes for sale to the public. they would mix and match skies and foregrounds freely, guided purely by esthetic effect and the need for speed. some of the results were both sloppy and hilarious ... cumulus clouds printed upside down, and bottoms of clouds overlapping the horizons, like something out of a horror movie. others were done exquisitely, but the photographers often had no say in what sky would be matched with what landscape.